Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927
No candidate approved this ad.

Beneath the mask of "Hope" and "Change" Barack Hussein Obama is a totally different character.
His Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde rolls are in conflict with the truth and what is good for America, as
well as the US Constitution.

When in public, "Dr. Jekyll Obama" says that it is good and right
for America that we do something to change things. We have to have hope and we need to help
each other with that change. He seems to want everything good for everyone.

When in private, the "Mr. Hyde Obama" is wanting change, too, not just change
in the way your wallet feels, as his "Dr. Jekyll" portion would have you believe,
but also in how your wallet gets changed. He thinks it's best for you to have
the government take away from your neighbor
and give to you. Although that particular
idea can work against you as much as for you, that is not the way it is portrayed
by "Mr. Hyde Obama". If you make
only $42,000 per year,
you may be able to get the
government to take from your neighbor on the right who makes $125,000, to give more
to you. However, if your neighbor on the left works hard and only makes $23,000 per
year, then it is your duty and your responsibility according to the "Mr. Hyde Obama",
to give some of your money to your neighbor on the left.

Does that sound fair to you now? Or does it sound fair only when you are on
the receiving end of the equation? Or maybe you're the one making $23,000 and you'd be
receiving from both neighbors (the one making $125,000 as well as the one making
$42,000). That sounds great to you. But what about the person who doesn't even make
$23,000 per year? Shouldn't he or she then have the expectation to be able to receive from
you? What part of your $23,000 do you want your neighbor to be able to take from you? How about
the welfare mother who makes nothing because she has three babies under five years old and
says she can't work because she has to stay home with her babies? How much of your $23,000
do you have to give her, in "Mr. Hyde Obama's" plan? And do you want to have to give
up that much of your meager pay check in order to be able to appease those who are
"less fortunate" than you? Or do you want to keep your pay check in your own pocket? Which are
you: Dr. Jekyll, or Mr. Hyde?

And that doesn't account for the money "Mr. Hyde Obama" wants to take from you
and give to the people of the world!
How much are you willing to give to the poor people in, say, China, Uzbekistan, New Guinnea, Bhutan,
Kyrgyzstan, Taiwan, or Yemen? "Mr. Hyde Obama" wants you to have to give
to the poor of all of those countries and to the poor in every country of the world.
Is that what you want? You want to be forced to give to the poor of the nations of the world?
How much should you be forced to give? How much should the government, "Mr. Hyde Obama" be
allowed to take out of your wallet to help those less fortunate than you who live halfway
around the world? And what of the responsibilities of their neighbors? Should their
paychecks be taken and given out as well? Does "Mr. Hyde Obama's" plans put rules onto
them in order to help the poor of the United States? No? Then where is the fairness
in that idea? Where are the rights of the American people? Where is your right to your
own hard earned money? "Mr. Hyde Obama" would not give you a say: it would happen. Period.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the
best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States."

"Mr. Hyde Obama" will be sworn in to "preserve, protect and defend" the US Constitution, but,
according to his own words, he thinks it's "imperfect" and has "some deep flaws".
How does anyone "preserve, protect and defend" a document you personally believe to
be so much in error?

So what rights will you have under a "Mr. Hyde Obama" presidency? What rights will
you, as a citizen of the United States of America, be guaranteed under the
kind of US Constitution the "Mr. Hyde Obama" would want you to have?
Does Joe the Plumber's experience tell you anything? After Joe the Plumber
questioned "Dr. Jekyll Obama" about his tax plans,
Joe the Plumber became the
target of investigations
into his past, his taxes, his driver's license,
everything and anything they could find on him was open fodder for
trying to discredit him so that the "Mr. Hyde Obama's" plans
would go unveiled. These techniques were used against Joe the Plumber
in order to shut him up. They were used in order to take away
Joe the Plumber's First Amendment Right:
Free Speech.

Is that the kind of President you want? One who will go through your
personal files (didn't we see that with the Clintons?) and find things
on you that would be used against you to shut up dissention? Is that what
you want? Or do you just need
more convincing?

What will happen to your Second Amendment Rights if "Dr. Jekyll Obama" gets
elected? You have, according to the US Constitution, the right to "keep and
bear arms". That's arms as in guns. What does "Dr. Jekyll Obama" have to say
about your right to "keep and bear arms"; your US Constitution given right?

Your right to "keep and bear arms" according to the
US Constitution is, according to
"Dr. Jekyll Obama"
something to stand up for. Not so according to "Mr. Hyde Obama".
See any differences in those two web pages? See any changes in his attitudes and stands? See any
difference in what he preaches? See anything on either page that differs one from the
other? If so, which is the true Obama?

On another note, Barack Hussein Obama's published accounts of his
childhood says that he was in a Muslim school in Indonesia for two years
as a child between the ages of six and eight, I believe. He says that after
that, he was put into a Catholic school in Indonesia. Then he was
sent back to the United States and raised in Hawaii by his grandparents.
He states that he is a Christian. His supporters believe him. Is this
the "Dr. Jekyll Obama" or the "Mr. Hyde Obama"?

ďWhich passages of Scripture should guide our public
policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok
and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy,
which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or
should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that
is so radical that itís doubtful that our own Defense Department
would survive its application? So before we get carried away,
letís read our bibles. Folks havenít been reading their bibles.Ē

The problem is that those passages
do not come from the Bible!
Leviticus is the book of laws: how to sanctify something, what the priests should wear and how to
perform a sacrifice to the Lord. Suggesting that slavery is okay is not
in there, but shellfish is. Also found in Leviticus, is the purpose of the dietary
laws in Leviticus 11:41-47. As to the Sermon on the Mount, it is Christ speaking and
I think that the words of Christ are much more reliable than the words of "Mr. Hyde Obama".

I find the portion about Deuteronomy especially disturbing. Why would he say that? Why
would "Dr. Jekyll Obama" choose that particular scripture? The
truth of the matter is revealed by a video that tells where
"Mr. Hyde Obama" got his ideas.
In the Quran, in
Surah 18:74 through 18:81, it states,

"81:74 Then they proceeded: until, when they met a young man,
he slew him. Moses said: "Hast thou slain an innocent person who had
slain none? Truly a foul (unheard of) thing hast thou done!

"18:75 He answered: "Did I not tell thee that thou canst have no patience with me?

"18:76 (Moses) said: "If ever I ask thee about anything after this, keep me not in
thy company: then wouldst thou have received (full) excuse from my side.

"18:77 Then they proceeded: until, when they came to the inhabitants of a town, they
asked them for food, but they refused them hospitality. They found there a wall
on the point of falling down, but he set it up straight. (Moses) said: "If thou
hadst wished, surely thou couldst have exacted some recompense for it!

"18:78 He answered: "This is the parting between me and thee: now will I tell thee
the interpretation of (those things) over which thou wast unable to hold patience.

"18:79 As for the boat, it belonged to certain men in dire want: they plied on the water:
I but wished to render it unserviceable, for there was after them a certain king who
seized on every boat by force.

"18:80 As for the youth, his parents were people of Faith, and we feared that he would grieve
them by obstinate rebellion and ingratitude (to Allah and man).

"18:81 So we desired that their Lord would give them in exchange (a son) better in purity
(of conduct) and closer in affection."

Was this what "Mr. Hyde Obama" was referring to? My question: if "Dr. Jekyll Obama"
is not a Muslim, how can he misconstrue the Bible so fiercely that he uses
ideas from the Quran? If Obama doesn't study the Quran, if he has
been a Christian for all this time, then how can he remember lessons and ideas from when
he was a child less than ten years old? He returned to the US when he was ten. He doesn't admit to
studying the Quran after that. He says he is a Christian and has been under the tutelage of the
"Rev." Jeremiah Wright for twenty years.
"Dr. Jekyll Obama" even named his first book after an idea he received from "Rev." Wright.

So being a Christian for twenty years, not studying the Quran for all that time,
and not studying it while you're a teen or young Harvard student, how do you
remember all that Quran stuff? How do the teachings of the Quran get mixed up with
the teachings of the Bible if you haven't been reading the Quran?

Can a person study both? Absolutely. I have two Qurans and part of the Hadith. I also
have three Book of Mormons, two Catechisms of the Catholic Church, a Torah, a Tanach, a Siddur,
parts of the Talmud, a Mormon Triplet (the book of Mormon, The Doctrines and
Covenenants, and the Pearl of Great Price all in one book), twenty-three Bibles
(including a Jehovah's Witness version), and several other resources. But I never confuse them. I never use
a quote from one as a quote from the other; especially not in a prepared speech! In order
to have used that particular combination, "Mr. Hyde Obama" would have had to have put
it down that way, written it that way, done that on purpose. Why?

The only answer I can come up with is to get that laugh line. To mock the Bible
and to make it something to laugh at. Do Christians do that? Does anyone who
really believes in the Bible and its teachings make the Bible -- and by
extension the God of the Bible -- a punch line?

My answer is, "No. Absolutely not." When I see "Mr. Hyde Obama" mock my
Bible, and by extension my God, I do not, cannot and will not believe
that "Mr. Hyde Obama" is a Christian. No true Christian would mock God. After all,
that's a very dangerous thing to do: Galations 6:7 says,

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap."

and I think that pertains to "Mr. Hyde Obama" as well as the rest of the world.

Add to this the fact that "Mr. Hyde Obama" used the idea that there are Christians
in Pennsylvania who "cling to their guns or religion". Would a Christian have said
that: we "cling to"? Are Christians "bitter" small town Americans who "cling to their
guns or religion"? If you are a Christian, would you have said that?

Add to that the fact that he sat under the tutelage of the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright
for twenty years and never heard him say that hateful stuff that is everywhere!
He never heard him after twenty years' worth of sitting in Wright's church. "Mr. Hyde Obama"
never knew that the "Reverend" felt the way he does, preached the things he preaches, or
anything else negative about the "Reverend". They had supper together. The "Reverend" officiated
at "Mr. Hyde Obama's" wedding to Michelle, baptised both of "Mr. Hyde Obama's" daughters and"Mr. Hyde Obama" himself! How are
we supposed to believe that "Mr. Hyde Obama" never heard all of that rott? How are we supposed
to believe that for twenty years "Mr. Hyde Obama" sat in that church and didn't support what was
being preached? If you went to a church for twenty years, wouldn't it be a church that supports and
preaches what you believe in? Would you expect to be thought of as a believer in the teachings
of a Baptist church if you went to it for twenty years? Or would you be espousing the idea that
you're really, say, a Hindu?

The last time I read the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the
Federalist Papers, I see God mentioned in a humble, sovereign way. In the Magna Carta,
God is mentioned as being the decider of leadership, among other things:

[Preamble] "Edward by the grace of God
King of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine sends greetings to all
to whom the present letters come. We have inspected the great charter of the lord
Henry, late King of England, our father, concerning the liberties of England in these words:

"Henry by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine
and count of Anjou sends greetings to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons,
sheriffs, reeves, ministers and all his bailiffs and faithful men inspecting the present charter.
Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors
and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our
good will have given and granted to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons and all
of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.

"[1] In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves
and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights
fully and its liberties entirely. We furthermore grant and give to all the freemen of our realm
for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity the liberties written below to have and to hold to them
and their heirs from us and our heirs in perpetuity."

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the
earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety
and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity
which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present
King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct
object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world."

"It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America
was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected,
fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty.
Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and
productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and
accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a
kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most
noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with
highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual
transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased
to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from
the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion,
attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners
and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side
by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty
and independence."

How can "Mr. Hyde Obama" -- a Constitutional attorney -- not get the idea, after
all those Harvard courses that America was founded as a Christian country? How can
he say that those who live in America and believe in the God who created us and
who was credited with founding America are "bitter" people who "cling to guns
or religion"?

It is my assertion that
"Mr. Hyde Obama"
is exactly that: "Mr. Hyde" Obama (and, no, I am not speaking of just his address!).
Barack Hussein Obama no more wants us to see that side of him than he wants us
to talk about his unmentionables. When you look at the truth
of what this person does, remember, actions speak louder than words. It is my belief that
you can tell the quality of a man by the quality of his friends. When you look at that,
and the rest of the truths that have to be dug out of the unreported facts of the candidate,
Barack Hussein Obama, then you find that the truth is worth knowing and that the truth
does not compliment this man enough to warrant him being elected President of the
United States of America.

My last question: Is this man, this "Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde Obama" someone you can trust, after all
that was hidden and is now being revealed, someone you can trust with the future of our country:
the future of the country where your children and grandchildren will probably live?